Worst Arguments

Two weeks ago I posted Left Brain Right Brain closes – how the actions of John Best (who sometimes posts as Fore Sam) had forced Kevin Leitch to close his blog to protect his family. Predictably, John Best appeared in the comments to promote his pseudoscientific view that autism is caused by Thimerosal in vaccines. Several other commenters (details below) took Best to task and essentially ripped his silly arguments apart for all to see. Yes, my regular commenters really are smarter than the average bear.

Not everyone reads long comments threads, but I can honestly recommend reading this one to see how weak Best’s’ arguments are. You can compare Best’s mere assertions with the actual contrary evidence and citations provided by the other commenters. It’s worth a read just to appreciate the intellectual ass kicking the other commenters gave Best. Some of it’s pretty funny too. And remember, this repertoire Best has of fallacious reasoning, assertion and bullying represent the very best (no pun intended) arguments that he has been able to think of in all his years promoting these beliefs. You’ll need to set aside a couple of hours to read all of the 180 comments - more if you’re going to read all the citations (not the ones from Best because he doesn’t provide any), but it will be entertaining.

That said, I know not everyone has that amount of spare time, so I’m going to sum up Best’s arguments and the rebuttals.

Best Arguments for Thimerosal

Pun intended that time. His is an argument in two parts, namely:

1. Autism first appeared in 1943 (or maybe 1931 – a little uncertain over the exact date) – which corresponds to the date Thimerosal was first used in vaccines. The only explanation for this is that thimerosal causes autism.
2. Based on his personal observation only, Best thinks his son’s autism (or is it his ADD – a little unsure here too), and that of several other kids, was cured by chelation.

Take those two points, add insults about your opponents – call them deuschbags (sic), knuckleheads, Bozo’s (sic), idiots, dumb bastards, simpletons, boneheads, wack jobs, bunch of jerks, scum, dopes etc. – and reference your success at gambling on the horses as proof you’re smart (I’m not kidding), and you’ve essentially got Best’s arguments.

I’ll try to summarize the main reasons the other commenters gave for why Best is wrong.

Autism first appeared in 1943

Best actually writes:

How about we use a graph from the last million years? It will show no autism until 1943 with a slow rise for about 40 years and an increasing rise as the number of vaccines with thimerosal increased.

Even if we had data from the last million years (obviously we don’t), it wouldn’t show autism until 1943 because that’s when Leo Kanner determined that autism was a separate syndrome, not reported before. Kanner notes autism had most likely previously been previously reported as schizophrenia. Best provided no data, but Tom Foss found Kanner’s actual paper that states:

These characteristics form a unique “syndrome,” not heretofore reported, which seems to be rare enough, yet is probably more frequent than is indicated by the paucity of observed cases. It is quite possible that some such children have been viewed as feebleminded or schizophrenic. In fact, several children of our group were introduced to us as idiots or imbeciles, one still resides in a state school for the feebleminded, and two had been previously considered as schizophrenic.

It seems fairly clear that Kanner means autistics were around before but had been misdiagnosed as feebleminded or schizophrenic. That is, autism existed before 1943 (or 1931 – take your pick), but it had been called something else. Kanner is just the first person to recognize that autism is something different. Best insists Kanner is saying autistics didn’t even exist before he (Kanner) diagnosed these initial children. Reading what Kanner wrote, I don’t see how any reasonable person could possibly come to the conclusion that Best comes to. In any case, the idea is absurd.

Best’s entire case stands or falls on his interpretation of Kanner’s words, the truth of Best’s interpretation, and Best’s assertion that “Autism is never misdiagnosed”. And he means it never was misdiagnosed – even before Kanner. That’s clearly an absurd assertion on its own, but even more so after Joseph provided a link to Dr. J. Landon Down and "Developmental" Disorders – referring to an 1887 paper that reported on patients with a “developmental” disorder that we would now almost certainly refer to as autism. Best just ignores this inconvenient piece of data.

Best then leads with what he considers is a killer argument, the crudely phrased:

Are you trying to tell me autism existed before 1943? If your ridiculous assertion is true, you should be able to show me 77 year olds at the rate of 1 in 150 with autism. If you can do that, I'll blow you.

Of course, it’s highly unlikely that 77 year old autistics, who value their privacy, would be lining up to present themselves now for classification at the order of John Best. Even so, Interverbal managed to provide:

California Department of Disability Services

Quarterly Report 7/1/1992

Age Cohort: 62-99

4 people meeting DSM-III-R autism criteria (stricter than the current standard).

1992 - 62 = 1930.

If they are alive today, then they are your 77 year old autistics, at the youngest.

Best just hand waved away this inconvenient piece of data.

The most charitable view is that Best hasn’t provided any even remotely extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary claim. The less charitable and more realistic view, is that his argument has been totally busted. And without it, what reason does he have to suppose autism is caused by Thimerosal? Oh yes, it’s:

Chelation

Best’s reasoning for this is:

My son's improvement, my son with ADD being 100% cured, friends and acquaintances who have cured their children and reports from DAN and others.

But he provides no double blind studies that show chelation to be better than placebo. There is a reason we use double blind studies – it is because we know that humans are good at fooling themselves. This is especially true with autism which involves delay in many areas of development. But delay doesn’t necessarily mean no progression. Autistic kids often progress without intervention, and certainly without chelation. Without a double blind study, you have no way of knowing if chelation is a factor in the progression or not.

Best also fails to explain why, if his son is “100% cured”, he still needs chelation. This is something you would expect if chelation was not curing the child. It’s a result that is inconsistent with chelation being the cure.

Without a randomized double-blind study we cannot possibly know if chelation is helping Best’s child or any other. And since that was the other leg of Best’s proof that Thimerosal causes autism, his “argument” such as it was, is completely destroyed. Best’s continued aggressive and anti-science responses such as “Studies are a waste of time to me” demonstrate his inability to even think coherently on this subject. It also means he doesn’t even realize how much he’s just been beaten, and how much his foolishness has been laid bare for the world to see.

Questions Best Can’t Answer

When debating someone, questions often arise from the claims the person makes. For example, if someone says “chelation cures autism”, a reasonable question is “where is the study that shows that?” Questions not answered, or answered dishonestly, can be very revealing about the strength of the person’s position and his or her intellectual honesty. Jimmy Blue and Tom Foss came up with several relevant questions that Best ignored. If you want to know how honest Best is, or how strong his case is, consider these questions that Best still can’t or won’t answer:

1. What reason do you have not to believe that all the Thimerosal has been removed from vaccines?
2. How does Thimerosal cause mercury poisoning?
3. If removing Thimerosal from childhood vaccines had no effect on reducing autism (because it's still coming from the parents' flu shots) then how do you know it was ever caused by childhood vaccines?
4. A lot fewer people get flu shots than get their children vaccines; still fewer get it while they're pregnant. How long does it stay in the mother's system?
5. What evidence do you have that chelation cures autistics?
6. So, were autistic kids born with "scrambled brains" before, due to the flu shots? If so, again, how could you blame childhood vaccines? If not, why has the flu vaccine started causing autism earlier than the mercury crowd used to claim?
7. How could Kanner (or you) say that autism had NEVER existed before 1943 if he (or you) did not have access to the medical records of every human being who had ever lived?
8. Why didn't mercury poisoning and widespread varied use cause autism until 1943/1931/1929?
9. How does chelation cure autism?
10. What is the chemical equation for the metabolization of some harmful mercury compound from Thimerosal in the body?
11. Why don't autistics exhibit the other symptoms of mercury poisoning (kidney dysfunction, ruddy faces, loss of hair, teeth, and nails, etc.) if autism is mercury poisoning?
12. How does HBOT cause brain cells to re-grow?
13. What evidence is there that autism is the result of brain cells damaged by mercury?
14. Why can't Best give us a detailed rebuttal of the sources found in the last week, when he has been researching this for years?
15. In what sense does he mean his son is cured of autism if he still needs treatment for it?
16. How does Generation Rescue respond to the accusation that its research is not peer reviewed?
17. Why does Generation Rescue still claim that the work of certain scientists supports their arguments when many of those scientists have specifically stated it does not and asked to be disassociated from GR's work?
18. How does Best explain the contradiction of claiming the CDC cannot be trusted whilst quoting autism prevalence rates provided by CDC research?
19. Why does Best think life is nothing to lose for autistic children?
20. How does Best explain his statement that autism is never misdiagnosed when there is clear evidence that it has been in the past and still is now?

Note in the comments below, whether or not Best attempts to answer any of these questions, and form your own views.

Acknowledgements

This post was written with the arguments developed and put forward by commenters on this blog.

Most of the heavy lifting of the detailed paragraph by paragraph rebuttals to Best’s points, was written by Jimmy_Blue and Tom Foss. From experience I know how much time this takes, and they should be congratulated. They also gave me several good laughs (“My dogs think they are smarter than you”). Tactical support was supplied by Bronze Dog and Techskeptic, pointing out fallacies and other problems with Best’s position. A couple of pieces of really interesting information came from Joseph, who has clearly been writing about autism longer than most of us. And of course, Interverbal found the 77 year old autistics that Best still insists don’t exist. Thanks to you all. It was quite a lesson in taking apart fallacious arguments.

Bestisms

I want to end with a few choice Best quotes. It’s not quite as good as this list of John Best quotes, but they are amusing none the less.

In response to requests for citations to back up his claims:

I don't use citations. I just rely on my memory. When you learn to do that, you will be a lot better off.

On the inventiveness of Eli Lilly:

Autism was invented in 1931 by Eli Lilly.

Argument by wild west wanted poster:

…just find me the 77 year olds, dead or alive.

On consistency in evaluating sources:

The FDA and CDC are not reputable sources for anything.

And then goes on to quote the autism prevalence of 1 in 150, which he gets from (guess where? No prizes) , the CDC.

On the true meaning of science

true scientists like myself…

and yet

I think you guys are too involved with science

Where I learned what I know to be true is of no concern to you.

Studies are a waste of time to me.

On humility

Autism is never misdiagnosed

And finally, the proof Best really is smarter than anyone else:

Until one of you morons can decipher a racing form and select 6 out of 9 races while I only pick 5, you will not be able to outdo me at any intellectual pursuit. For, handicapping horse races is the single most difficult problem solving exercise one could ever encounter.

Note: the single most difficult problem solving exercise one could ever encounter. There really is no answer to that. Best’s Nobel Prize must surely be a mere formality.

Comments

[John Best]

Jim,
God is capitalized. If you don't respect Him, He won't respect you on judgement day.
Show me that any of you nitwits can do a better job of handicapping horses if you want to prove your point that it is not the highest intellectual pursuit that exists.
Edsel's did not exist before Ford built them, same thing with Eli Lilly causing autism. You'r ereading too much junk from nitwits who want to make the drug comoanies look innocent. They aren't.
Coverups are different than conspiracies. Calling me a conspiracy nutcase means you lose since you had to resort to name calling and lying. I answered your 20 questions. If you didn't understand the answers, too bad.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Best:

God is capitalized. If you don't respect Him, He won't respect you on judgement day.

I think I will get over it. What with him not existing. I mean really, do you even understand what an atheist is?

Show me that any of you nitwits can do a better job of handicapping horses if you want to prove your point that it is not the highest intellectual pursuit that exists.

You really are an idiot. Show me that you can land a manned mission on Mars. Show me that you can cure AIDs or Cancer. Show me that you can write better than Shakespeare. Show me that you can paint better than Van Gogh. Show me that you even understand what an intellectual pursuit is (I'll give you a clue, it has nothing to do with guessing who is going to win a race).

Edsel's did not exist before Ford built them, same thing with Eli Lilly causing autism. You'r ereading too much junk from nitwits who want to make the drug comoanies look innocent. They aren't.

But I'm illiterate? I did link to Deth's paper remember? Is he a nitwit? It was hosted on autism.com, are they nitwits? Best, your idea that Eli Lilly caused autism is completely debunked, you have had no answers for the criticism of your position on this other than to keep saying you are true. The findings in Deth's paper even debunk this position. In case you haven't read it Deth found that a large number of nuero-toxins caused the problem he thinks he has identified, not just mercury or thimerasol. He found that thimerasol had the greatest effect, but that lead or alcohol also had one.

If mercury prevents methylation, then it has always prevented methylation. Or are you now arguing that methylation and mercury didn't exist before Eli Lily invented them?

You are reading junk from morons with no clue, and then when you read scientific papers you don't even understand them, claim you do, and then claim the papers say something they clearly don't.

Where did any of the sources I have cited say the drug companies are innocent? Innocent of what anyway?

Coverups are different than conspiracies. Calling me a conspiracy nutcase means you lose since you had to resort to name calling and lying.

You are a stupid fuckwit. How's that for name calling? But just so we are clear, you started the name calling, you have resorted to it in almost every single post you have made.

Please do explain how a cover up is different to a conspiracy though, this should be no problem for an intellectual giant such as you.

I answered your 20 questions. If you didn't understand the answers, too bad.

You attempted to answer them. If you didn't understand the rebuttals, too bad. If you didn't understand the follow up questions, too bad. If you didn't understand the new questions, too bad.

Best, you lose because you have no evidence for your arguments, you have repeatedly lied about evidence and positions, you have absolutely failed to answer our questions, you have shown yourself to be woefully ignorant of just about anything you turn your hand to (except guessing on horses), you lose because even the researchers you cite don't say what you claim they say (Kanner and Deth).

Answer the new questions or shut up.

Address the rebuttals to your answers of the previous 20+ or shut up.

Answer the specific questions about the nature of your theory or shut up.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Now for your homework Bestie. See if you understood my lesson on comma splicing and independent clauses and apply it to the post above.

That's a lot simpler than methionine synthase of homocysteine using a methyl group from methylcobalamin. So let's see if you can get it.

[genewitch]

Best i see that the correct 4 would have garnered you over 10k, What are the odds on that bet, do you know? (i don't)

[genewitch]

actually nevermind for those races the odds were 1 in 3023 and some change. (if picking at random) so i guess it's a good bet (if i did pay out 10k and some change). Although i'd really need to know what the vigorish was and a bunch of other factors... i read bookkeepers can charge 14%, which is an obnoxious vigorish for a gamble. I prefer craps and roulette, where i can bring the vigorish well under 1%, personally. doesn't take any awesome amount of intellect, just understanding odds and how to progressively bet.

hrmph to horses.

[genewitch]

I have an analogy for some people here. Best says he can handicap horses well. fine. So what if someone came up to best at a track meet and said "hey i have this great bettor system that i worked out, and hundreds of people are using it and it works great!"

What would best say? Probably "prove it."

I wonder why that is? why wouldn't you just take them at their word? obviously if hundreds of people are using the strategy and they are seeing results it means that the strategy is valid, right?

Or could it mean that they got lucky, or it is coincidence, or that the hundreds of people were already good at gambling and this system isn't really affecting their betting as much as the guy trying to sell it to you is saying...

hmmmmmmmmmm.

[Techskeptic]

"Or could it mean that they got lucky, or it is coincidence, or that the hundreds of people were already good at gambling and this system isn't really affecting their betting as much as the guy trying to sell it to you is saying..."

Or the guy is full of shit and can't figure out that a few people getting lucky one day doesn't mean that everyone gets lucky all the time with the system. When he gets asked about how he knows the system works, he simply says stuff like "you don't know what you are talking about, you idiot" and then proceeds to obtusely point to things that actually refute the idea that the system works all while questioning the intelligence of everyone around him.

LOL, what a crap load. Sadly, idiots like him continue to affect the population at a whole. I just saw another woman on the news chelating her kids (and also sticking them in a hyperbaric chamber) to cure the autism that the nasty, horrible immunizations gave her kids (never mind there wasn't any thimerisol in them).

[ABD]

I always find it refreshing to run across other people who understand that autism is not caused by immunization and that everyone who believes this is crazy. I am 26 and have a 20 year old autistic brother. My mother believes with deeply religious conviction that his autism is my father's fault because he believed that their children should be inoculated against dangerous diseases and had both of us vaccinated, against her will. I mean, what an ass.

She knows "for sure" this is what caused his autism. These days, I hardly ever talk to her because the topic almost always comes up, and it is hard for me to cloak my contempt for such a profoundly stupid viewpoint. One of her favorite supporting points is to argue that the rate of autism has increased from no cases at the turn of the century, to bla cases in the 1950s, to such and such cases now. This drives me insane because I can't get it through to her that a) it didn't exist as a diagnosis until the forties, so of course there were "no" cases, b) population increase makes her numbers statistically insignificant, and c) it's not like people really understood it all that well then (or now, even) and were consistently diagnosing it properly, and d) mentally disabled people used to be hidden away in institutions or back rooms and not everyone wanted to talk about them.

SUCK IT, MOM!

[Jimmy_Blue]

Well, looks like a grammar question from someone Bestie described as functionally illiterate has scared him off.

How about something more your area of expertise Bestie? Since you are a true scientist and intellectual giant.

Please explain the difference between methylation and demethylation, and how they both relate to methylcobalamin as part of the methionine synthase of homocysteine. Cite your favourite paper if you need to.

Please explain what role methylcobalamin plays in the methionine synthase of homocysteine. Feel free to refer to this interesting paper if it helps.

Perhaps you could also explain why Deth makes no mention of the fact that inhibition of methionine synthase can lead to the degeneration of the spinal cord and/or megaloblastic anemia.

Did you know that methionine synthase can also be inactivated by exposure to nitrous oxide? Maybe dentists are actually the cause of autism, hey Bestie?

Can you also please explain what Arakawa's Syndrome II is? Just so we know how much research on all this you've done.

Here are a couple of hints. It is also sometimes known as Methionine synthase deficiency. It presents as:

This disorder causes neurological problems, including mental retardation, brain atrophy and ventricular dilation, myoclonus, hypotonia, and epilepsy.

It is also associated with growth retardation, megaloblastic anemia, pectus excavatum, scoliosis, vomiting, diarrhea, and hepatosplenomegaly. Inheritance is autosomal dominant.

Anything sound familiar there Bestie?

You're a dangerous idiot and an intellectual coward.

[Skeptico]

Well, it’s been over a month and it looks like John Best has given up trying to educate we mere mortals on the true causes of autism. I’ll just reiterate that Best was unable to explain how he knew his child’s improvement was due to the chelation (“Screw your DBCS's. I don't give a rat's ass about them” was his charming response) – and that is because there is no possible way he could know whether or not his child would have improved without the chelation.

In fact, the chelation almost certainly did not help. Just published is yet another new study that found no mercury – autism link. I’m happy to let Best’s words above speak for themselves. Nothing could more impressively demonstrate what an idiot Best is than the inane boasting drivel he so eloquently wrote down of his own free will. But I think it’s time to close this thread for comments. Enough is enough – even of the high comedy delivered to us by Mr Best.